Shri Vinod Thomas v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR

$~40 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 2651/2017 SHRI VINOD THOMAS ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Padam Singh, Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh & Mr. Kameshwar Pratap Singh, Advs. with petitioner in person versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Dr.M.P. Singh, APP.

SI Naveen, P.S. Subzi Mandi Ms. Reena Luka, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 17.07.2017 The petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved with respondent No.2. A case was lodged by respondent No.2 vide FIR No.227/2016 dated 21.07.2016 (P.S. Subzi Mandi) instituted for offences under Sections 354/354B of the IPC.

The petitioner is stated to be residing with his wife in the house of the Principal of the school where the mother of respondent No.2 has been working for last several years.

The allegations in the FIR are of trivial nature wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner demanded water from respondent No.2, who worked as a house-maid and then tried to catch hold of her hands. These overt acts of the petitioner were complained against and later, these issues

were settled between the parties. From the narration of events from the FIR, it appears that there has been some dispute over the nature of work which the respondent No.2 had to do at the house of the Principal of the school who is directly related to the petitioner.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the respondent No.2, on her own, has decided not to prosecute the petitioner any further. A settlement deed also has been executed between the parties. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 are present in court. This court has interacted with respondent No.2 and she, in unequivocal terms, has stated that she does not wish to prosecute the petitioner. Taking into account the facts, namely, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, settlement of dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and the futility of continuing with this kind of prosecution any further, this court is inclined to quash the subject FIR. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

could also be quashed, when continuation of any criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):

"58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the

crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.

The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No.227/2016 dated 21.07.2016 (P.S. Subzi Mandi) instituted for offences under Sections 354/354B of the IPC and all the emanating proceedings therefrom are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JULY 17, 2017 ns